[Ruling on the point of order of 3/16/82]:
595 During the assembly debate on SB 70, Representative Loftus raised the point of order that Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 to that measure was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f). That rule provides that an amendment is not germane if it substantially expands the scope of the proposal.
As passed by the senate, SB 70 establishes provisions governing periodic payment to contractors under public works contracts. That proposal would require public works contracts to specify the day of the month on which each monthly estimate is to be provided by the contractor and the name of the person to whom it is to be delivered. Payment to the contractor is due 30 days after the estimate is received and the final payment under the contract is to be made within 60 days after completion of the project. The proposal also specifies the percentage of each periodic payment which may be retained to assure prompt and adequate completion of the project.
Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 to SB 70 also relates to the periodic payment of contractors under public works contracts. However, instead of mandating the specific provisions which must be included in contracts governing these periodic payments, the substitute provides permissive authority for the
state and other public bodies to include their own provisions which govern periodic payments. The scope of both proposals is the same. Both are limited in their extent and application to the subject of contracts providing for periodic payment; while the specific provisions of each are obviously different, the substitute does not address a broader area than does the senate version and consequently does not run afoul of Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
In addition, the substitute amendment is germane under the provision of Assembly Rule 54 (4) (b), as an amendment which accomplishes the same purpose as the original proposal in a different manner. The purpose of SB 70 is to specify provisions which must be included in public works contracts. As was pointed out by Rep. Plewa in discussion concerning the point of order, SB 70 establishes (1) a =_maximum percentage of each periodic payment which the public body =_may retain and (2) establishes a =_maximum length of time within which the public body must make payment. However, under the original proposal the state or municipality retains a considerable amount of flexibility and may elect not to retain anything out of each periodic payment or may retain less than 5% of each payment as the work progresses. In addition, the contract may provide for partial payment as the work progresses. In addition, the contract may provide for partial payments within any time period shorter than 30 days and may provide for final payment within any time period less than 60 days. Thus, under the main proposal, the discretion of the state or municipality to specify such provisions in the public works contracts is maintained although limited.
Similarly, Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 to SB 70 authorizes municipalities to include provisions within their public works contracts which govern periodic payments. It details the type of provisions which may be included, while removing the limitations contained in SB 70. It therefore accomplishes the same purpose as the original, however in a different fashion.
596 While Representative Loftus also raised the point that Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 expanded the scope of the main proposal because it newly amended secs. 59.96 (6) (m) and 62.15 (10), I would note that the senate version also addresses these sections in making cross-reference changes under sec. 4 of that bill. The changes which Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 makes in those sections of the statutes are really unnecessary to accomplish the intent of the substitute and were only technical modifications made by the drafter similar to the cross-reference changes of SB 70.
Provisions contained in a contract under Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 relating to periodic payments would continue to apply to contracts under 59.96 (6) (m) and 62.15 (10) in the same fashion as would the provisions established by SB 70. This is merely a particularized detail contained in the amendment which under Rule 54 (4) (e) would not cause the amendment to be nongermane.
In sum, I believe that Assembly Substitute Amendment 2 to SB 70 is germane under Assembly Rule 54 (4) (b) as an amendment which accomplishes the same purpose as the original proposal although in a different manner and the different provisions of the two proposals are nothing more than particularized details acceptable under Assembly Rule 54 (4) (e). As a result, the assembly should not be precluded by Assembly Rule 54 (1) from considering it.
Assembly Journal of March 4, 1982 .......... Page: 2494
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 583 [relating to compulsory motor vehicle
insurance, granting rule-making authority and providing a penalty] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (1) [change nature] and (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] Although the title of A.Sub.1, "relating to impoundment of motor vehicles for failure to deposit security" created that appearance, impoundment had been a part of the bill so that the substitute represented a limitation of scope, which is permitted under A.Rule 54 (4) (c).
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken.
Assembly Journal of February 23, 1982 .......... Page: 2326
Point of order:
Representative Ulichny rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 150 [relating to changes in the regulation of motor carriers and granting rule-making authority] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope].
[Note:] The substitute amendment concerned not only motor carriers, but included changes in railroad regulation and abolition of the transportation commission.
The chair [Rep. Tesmer, deputy speaker] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of February 16, 1982 .......... Page: 2202
[Background: when the assembly reached AB 600, "relating to requiring the use of child restraint systems in motor vehicles, granting rule-making authority and providing a penalty", the calendar already showed A.Sub.1 by Reps. D. Travis and Ulichny, A.Sub.2 by the Committee on Children and Human Development, and 8 amendments to A.Sub.2. Reps. D. Travis and Ulichny offered A.Sub.3. Under A.Rule 55 (1) (b), A.Sub.3 could be considered only "if no other substitute amendment has been adopted".]
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 3 to Assembly Bill 600 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c).
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 600 had not been acted upon.
Assembly Journal of February 16, 1982 .......... Page: 2208
[Intervening business. The question was: Shall assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 600 be adopted? Motion carried.]
Point of order:
Representative Wood rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 600 was not germane under Assembly Rule 53 (3) (f).
The chair [Rep. Tesmer, deputy speaker] ruled the point of order not timely under Assembly Rule 54 (2) [a question of germaneness .... "shall not be in order once an amendment has been adopted"].
Assembly Journal of February 9, 1982 .......... Page: 2070
Point of order:
Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 732 [relating to requiring local units of government to set the dog license tax on unneutered male dogs and unspayed female dogs at a higher rate than on neutered male dogs and spayed female dogs] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f) [substantial expansion of scope]. The chair [Rep. Tesmer, deputy speaker] took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] The purpose of the bill was to tax reproductive dogs at a higher rate than spayed or neutered dogs. The substitute retained those provisions and, in addition, increased the kennel license (an alternative to individual dog licenses) from $25 to $40 without reference to the reproductive status of the dogs in the kennel.
Assembly Journal of February 9, 1982 .......... Page: 2074
The chair [Rep. Tesmer, deputy speaker] ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Thompson that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 732 was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (f).
1 9 8 1 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of March 23, 1982 .......... Page: 1783
Point of order:
Senator Harnisch raised the point of order that senate amendment 1 to senate substitute amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 303, relating to voluntary designation on income tax returns for the protection and acquisition of endangered resources and making an appropriation] was not germane.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
598 Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 was not germane. The chair took the point of order under advisement.
Senate Journal of March 23, 1982 .......... Page: 1788
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
Earlier today the Senator of the 29th, Senator Chilsen, raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 303, relating to voluntary designation on income tax returns for the protection and acquisition of endangered resources and making an appropriation] was not germane. Senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 303 relates to a taxpayer check-off for various programs and purposes, while Assembly Bill 303 relates to a check-off solely for endangered resources.
Senate Rule 50 (7) reads "A substitute or amendment relating to a specific subject or to a general class is not germane to a bill relating to a different specific subject, but an amendment limiting the scope of the proposal is germane".
It is the opinion of the chair that senate substitute amendment 1 would expand the scope of the original proposal, not limit the scope, and that senate substitute amendment 1 relates to a general class (i.e., various programs), and Assembly Bill 303 relates to the specific subject of endangered resources, and therefore the amendment is not germane. The point of order raised by the senator of the 29th, Senator Chilsen, is well taken.
Senate Journal of June 25, 1981 .......... Page: 577
Point of order:
Senator Thompson raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 [to Senate Bill 206, relating to removing restrictions on advertising venereal disease treatment services] was not germane.
[Note:] 1981 SB 206 was limited to repealing a statute (s.143.075) which prohibited advertising the availability of venereal disease treatment services. The statute contained a reference to abortions and miscarriages.
S.Sub.1 attempted to continue the advertising prohibition, removing the reference to "veneral disease treatment" but retaining a revised reference to "abortion or miscarriage".
The chair [Pres. Risser] stated that pursuant to Senate Rule 50 (5) an attempt by the substitute amendment to amend or repeal the bill is not germane. The chair ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Journal of May 21, 1981 .......... Page: 453
Point of order:
Senator Bablitch raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 [to Assembly Bill 320, relating to eliminating the expiration date for
collective bargaining impasse resolution procedures for local government employes other than law enforcement and fire fighting personnel] was not germane.
Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:
It is the chair's opinion that Senate Rule 50 (5) is the prevailing rule as pointed out by both Senator Bablitch and Senator Hanaway.
599 The rule in part states that an amendment amending a section repealed by the original proposal is not germane.
[Note:] An identical substitute to 1981 AB 320 had already been ruled "not germane" in the assembly (A.Jour. 5/7/81, p. 466).
1981 AB 320 repealed the 10/31/81 sunset of "mediation arbitration" and, thereby, made the procedure permanent. A.Sub.1 proposed to postpone the sunset to 10/31/85 - rather than delaying the effective date for making the procedure permanent, the substitute merely extended by 4 years the life expectancy of the temporary procedure.
Senate substitute amendment 1 attempts to amend a section repealed by Assembly Bill 320. The substitute amendment is attempting to change the intent of the bill and is therefore not germane.
Therefore, the point of order is well taken.
1 9 7 9 A S S E M B L Y
Assembly Journal of March 26, 1980 .......... Page: 3121
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 166 [relating to issuing special identification cards for disabled persons, granting rule-making authority and providing a penalty] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54. The speaker took the point of order under advisement.
[Note:] The bill required special identification cards for disabled (handicapped) persons using handicapped vehicle registration plates to park the vehicle notwithstanding any time restrictions applicable to the parking space.
A.Sub.1 also required providing parking spaces reserved for handicapped parking in all parking lots.
Assembly Journal of April 2, 1980 .......... Page: 3333
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled well taken the point of order raised by Representative Shabaz on Wednesday, March 26 that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Senate Bill 166 was not germane.
Assembly Journal of March 13, 1980 .......... Page: 2699
Point of order:
Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 1178 [relating to permitting reserve judges to officiate at marriage ceremonies] was not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3) (c) [issue already decided].
[Note:] A.Sub.1 was identical to A.Sub.2, which had already been rejected. A.Sub.2 was considered first [in compliance with A.Rule 55 (1) (a)] because it was the last substitute introduced preceding consideration of the bill.
600 The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order well taken.
Assembly Journal of February 27, 1979 .......... Page: 215
Point of order:
Representative Lallensack rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 46 [relating to increasing the ceiling on the public debt for veterans' mortgage loans and making an appropriation] was not germane under Assembly Rule 50 because the constitutional amendment providing for public debt for veterans' housing which was approved by the people in April 1975 (Wis. Constitution Article VIII, Sections 3 and 7) provided for general obligation bonding and not revenue bonding as contained in the substitute amendment.
The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because amendments to bills are not required to be germane to the constitution. He also ruled: 1) the substitution of revenue bonding for general obligation bonding was a matter of particularized details and not one individual proposition amending another, 2) the substitute was intended to accomplish the same purpose in a different manner, and 3) the scope of the proposal was not expanded by changing the amount of the appropriation.
1 9 7 9 S E N A T E
Senate Journal of October 10, 1979 .......... Page: 801
[Point of order:]
Senator Strohl raised the point of order that senate substitute amendment 3 to Senate Bill 355 [relating to broadening the emergency fuel assistance law] was not germane.
Senator Lorge asked unanimous consent that senate substitute amendment 3 be treated as if it were germane. Senator Bablitch objected.
The chair [Pres. Risser] ruled the point of order well taken.
Senate Bill 355 as originally drafted relates to broadening an emergency fuel assistance program and to that only.
Senate substitute amendment 3 attempts to incorporate all of the provisions of Assembly Bill 777, which relates to alternative energy incentives. The amendment would totally alter the nature of the original purpose and therefore under Senate Rule 50 (1) the amendment is not germane.
Senator Opitz appealed the ruling of the chair. [Display of roll call vote omitted; ayes-22, noes-10.] So the decision of the Chair shall stand as the judgment of the Senate.
Sunset laws
1 9 8 9 A S S E M B L Y
